Comments on: Andrew Keen “Web 2.0 is dead, long live Twitter”

By: Blogging is changing: advice from Sacca, Mullenweg and Jarvis how to stay ahead | Ernst-Jan Pfauth

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:23:11 +0000

[...] liveblogging buddy Anne Helmond wrote an excellent post about Andrew Keen’s keynote: “Web 2.0 is dead, long live Twitter” Lees meer over: chris sacca, digital nomads, jeff jarvis, matt mullenweg, news, tnw, travel, [...]

By: Untitled

Untitled — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:49:08 +0000

[...] Veldhuijzen van Zanten from an aricle on TheNextWeb by Anne [...]

By: M Vetter

M Vetter — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 01:47:10 +0000

M1chel, it is interesting to hear a young perspective and hear someone struggle to draw the cultural and social significance from the Internet. I think arguing the merits of different technologies (Web 2.0, twitter, etc.)–which has lead to significant advances vs. which has lead to further degradation of culture–is an unfruitful pursuit. I think what you say about “branding of individuals” being important but not for revenue sake it interesting. As a marketer, I regard brands as valuable because they help organizations establish consistent, credible, remarkable, desirable reputations that people will pay them for. At a personal level, you mention the few professionals that are benefiting form the “branding of the individual”, but it isn’t only professionals.

Any idiot committed enough to invite thousands of people to watch him and crawl around from site to site, following and posting can establish a brand. Just look at the hot gossip columnist turned celebradork. Talentless, irrelevant and yet exposed, connected, linked, followed, hit, trafficked, etc. Determination has always allow individuals to rise to the surface whether the platform or environment was actual reality or virtual reality.

But the profit motive and the profit reality always come back to me. I cannot believe the amount of resource that is poured into the Internet every day on the promise of profit or money or meaning that can be turned in to money. I agree that some aren’t motivated by it and they can find a following with no regard for making money. Popularity is a currency all its own. But, one day, will the Internet get a black screen, like our debt clock that says, “Times up. There is no longer enough money to support activity that does not produce value or currency. The Internet will remain off, until sufficient currency is generated to turn it back on.” Will it?

By: Booklist 2.0: May 2009 - The Next Web

Booklist 2.0: May 2009 - The Next Web — Sun, 31 May 2009 09:12:12 +0000

[...] is that Keen, despite his criticism, actually addresses that he loves the web and is deeply encouraged in tools like Twitter. I don’t get that same impression from Bauerlein. In Dumbest Generation [...]

By: M1chel

M1chel — Thu, 07 May 2009 22:19:41 +0000

Hi, I’m a student of communication sciences and an internet lover which lead me to write a bachelor thesis on the evolution and cultural affection of internet in the present society. I’m currently trying to get all the ideas in words and I really love what you wrote in this article. it gives me a new perspective on the last step we reached or we are gonna reach.
I mean, I feel it’s an unusual and therefore fascinating approach and I need to think about it, but so far I came to the conclusion that what you say about branding ourselves it’s true. And web 2.0 is definitely going to evolve in something new. it’s an internet’s paradigm that dictates such a fast and endless evolution.
However I think it’s wrong to say that web 2.0 failed. it’s somehow meaningless to consider it could fail or succed. which are the parameters to judge its results? the fact that is gonna evolve and be replaced? I think it’s more of a natural path. “web 2.0″, as we call it, played a fundamental role in a revolution that involved much more then few websites. you say it your self mentioning for instance newspaper’s decline. it had a life and a purpose that may got completed and we’re maybe ready to the next step that you’re interestingly proposing here. I say then, that it was really useful and it succeded.
Something else I need to think about is the actual new way branding ourself could open or not. I do agree with this movement right now, there are niche of well trusted indivuals that gained by merits their subscribers and they are solving a big issue of web 2.0: taking as an exemple news industry again, mainstream media lost their followers and fame coz we couldn’t trust’em anymore. they were lead by companies and corporates, they did stuff, they didn’t said stuff, the made up stuff and we knew everything thanks to internet and web 2.0 which simultaneously was the new era of newsmaking as it could broke the barriers of old agencies: they were gatekeepers deciding what to show and provide, while through blogging and indipendent media everything was shown and the users decided what to pick. plus no more filters between me and the news. or at least the minimum possible. The only problem was still trust. can we trust a little No-one telling me stuff? intimacy was not enough yet. instead it seems to become enough now where thre’s an individual taking the besto of two worlds: the intimacy of a 1 real person and the professionalism of an institution. still we have to trust this few person but it’s a step ahead. or is it not? one of the pro of web 2.0 was also the number of referencies (each personals) that could make an info trustable. now instead we’re moving back to an oligarchy. but maybe that’s just a problem too speific for newsmaking.
What I think must be cleared of this “branding individuals” concept is that you consider the whole thing from the point of view of revenues and product or marketing success. This is also why you say web 2.0 was failing probably. But revenues is just not a target, an aim that embraces the will of all users. wether you intend both revenue as money and popularity. For those who do then yes, I think you’re right and twitter is cutting it. for the rest, wich I believe are a vast majority, twitter isn’t something that really affect them. many users see internet as a reference tool for information and right now we’re good and twitter doesn’t add anything. most of users think of internet as a way of keeping in touch and being “online” as we are effectively individualizing the society as never before. for them twitter is effective as a new tool of communication, but it’s not much other then that. I don’t feel or I don’t see yet a will that goes beyond being in a net of connection and communication. I think this “brandind of individuals” is happening but it’s relevant only for few professional.

By: The future of web 3.0: Personal brands as system filters. | Antonio Thonis

Mon, 04 May 2009 17:23:21 +0000

[...] and in which personal brands will play a major role. Andrew Keen held an inspiring presentation about web 3.0 at The next web 2009 conference in Amsterdam back in April. He beliefs that web 3.0 will have [...]

By: April aan de hand van de tweets « Dee’tjes: over internet, zoeken en bibliotheken

Fri, 01 May 2009 13:05:19 +0000

[...] wordt, is andere koek: glim glim. Wonderlijk vond ik ook die uitspraak van ‘Andrew Keen “Web 2.0 is dead, long live Twitter”’ die man heeft zich daarmee toch gediskwalificeerd zeg. De verbazing-veroorzakende Susan [...]

By: Sula pinta #40: Avoimuuden mahdollisuudet tai vaarat « Sula Pinta

Sula pinta #40: Avoimuuden mahdollisuudet tai vaarat « Sula Pinta — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:13:35 +0000

[...] toimisi, riittääkö valvojaksi Mika Mannermaan maalailema Jokaveli? Andrew Keen julistaa Web 2.0:n ja tasa-arvoisen nettikommunikaation kuolemaa, ja tilalle ovat nousemassa identiteettien brändit jotka käyttävät valtaa niiden yli, jotka [...]

By: Smart Mobs » Blog Archive » TechCrunch interview with Andrew Keen about Twitter

Sat, 18 Apr 2009 10:17:52 +0000

[...] Boris Veldhuijzen van Zanten asked Andrew Keen to address the following question in his keynote: Why do you love the web? TechCrunch Europe’s Mike Butcher conducted a short video interview at Next Web 2009 in Amsterdam [...]

By: Das Ende des Web 2.0 | Björn Sievers

Das Ende des Web 2.0 | Björn Sievers — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:03:46 +0000

[...] Diese Zeilen stammen von Andrew Keen, ein Internetversteher, den ich eben schon zitierte, und stehen hier. [...]